__________________Bruce I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me"Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.

While I definitely raise an eyebrow at an agency of 27 cops covering 2,700 people, the geography involved, and the sheer amount of cash involved, there is really not a lot of information in the article about the actual source of the cash and circumstances surrounding its seizure and forfeiture, which seems to be the typical complaint when forfeiture gets publicity.

__________________"Logic is rarely the engine that propels a police department forward."

I am a touch curious as to how an officer from there is stationed in Southern California. I am strongly in favor of using asset seizure as a tool but perhaps slightly less supportive if it becomes the goal.

__________________Bruce I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me"Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.

I can find no Constitutional requirement for conviction as a pre-requisite. If the people want civil hearings separate from criminal procedings, then that's acceptable.

__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

I can find no Constitutional requirement for conviction as a pre-requisite. If the people want civil hearings separate from criminal procedings, then that's acceptable.

Absent a conviction what is the legal justification for forfeiture? Is it the same justification an armed robber uses - I have a gun and I am taking your property?

Constitutional prohibition... What about this?

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

__________________
"Never give to your friend any power that your enemy may some day inherit." -- Paul Weyrich

But civil forfeiture is like suing someone. Anyone can do it. The only difference here is that it's the .gov that's doing the "suing." And they have the advantage of already holding the assets.

Asset forfeiture is the same as a civil suit, that is, it's based on a a "more likely than not" standard. Same as when OJ was acquitted in criminal court for murder, but later found responsible in the civil suit. I don't remember anyone at the time crying how unfair that civil suit judgement against OJ was!

__________________Although many good citizens own and carry guns, keeping communities safe still fall on those who carry badges.

In a gun fight, even if you do everything right, you can still get killed.

Absent a conviction what is the legal justification for forfeiture? Is it the same justification an armed robber uses - I have a gun and I am taking your property?

Constitutional prohibition... What about this?

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You are quoting criminal process and not civil procedure. The difference is important and dissimilar.

Absent a conviction what is the legal justification for forfeiture? Is it the same justification an armed robber uses - I have a gun and I am taking your property?

Constitutional prohibition... What about this?

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If this is your thinking, then you should be happy. The 4th only requires probable cause supported by oath to seize property. Civil forfeiture requires a preponderance of the evidence---a higher standard than PC---in a setting where the government's facts are subject to cross-examination.

Of course as has already been pointed out, you're applying a wholly irrelevant standard. The description of forfeiture as a lawsuit is an excellent one. The government sues to take possession of the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime. If they prove by the majority of the evidence that a thing is used in crime, or gained because of crime, they take it.

Are you going to claim that a person has a right to property that is the proceed of criminal activity?

__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

Absent a conviction what is the legal justification for forfeiture? Is it the same justification an armed robber uses - I have a gun and I am taking your property?

Constitutional prohibition... What about this?

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

"Seize" and "own" have totally different meanings?

Thank god you are one of those who can read plain english!

__________________Although many good citizens own and carry guns, keeping communities safe still fall on those who carry badges.

In a gun fight, even if you do everything right, you can still get killed.

I am a touch curious as to how an officer from there is stationed in Southern California. I am strongly in favor of using asset seizure as a tool but perhaps slightly less supportive if it becomes the goal.

There is a very strong program in SoCal and small agencies attach their people to various Task Forces and you can get various percentages of any seizure depending on your level of involvement but there is a minimum "cut" so to speak.

It can get very lucrative if you throw a few people who are dedicated to that stuff.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.

I've always considered "Asset Forfeiture" to be nothing more than Legalized Theft by the Government. The way it's been used in many cases hasn't changed my mind one bit.

It's a genius move as far as I'm concerned. Stealing drug dealers' illegal profits, and using them to legally fund drug enforcement... I mean it doesn't get any better than that. It's like the scene in Point Break where the crooks made Keanu Reeves (a kidnapped FBI agent investigating bank robbery) come with them to rob a bank. Only he had no gun and no mask. Or something like that.

^^ Those comments are unrelated to the original post/article, which I can't seem to read because I'm not a registered user of that news site.

Of course as has already been pointed out, you're applying a wholly irrelevant standard. The description of forfeiture as a lawsuit is an excellent one. The government sues to take possession of the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime. If they prove by the majority of the evidence that a thing is used in crime, or gained because of crime, they take it. - from Sam Spade

Sam,
In your quote above, it seems you are saying that the agency is the plaintiff. I don't think that's right. In actual practice it goes more like this:

1. the seizure occurs.

2. WHETHER CHARGES ARE EVER FILED OR NOT, the seized assets AUTOMATICALLY become the property of the agency.

3. It is then up to the owner of the asset to choose to file a civil suit to recover the assets.

4. It the asset owner chooses to sue, they have the burden of hiring an attorney (and paying for it themselves) and paying the filing fees to get the case into civil court. Then they have the burden of proof, and must "prove a negative" (that the asset ISN'T from illegal activity)

5. If they lose, they are subject to paying the attorney's fees for the agency's attorneys.

6. If they win, they get their stuff back. They don't get back their time, lost time from work, or any court expenses. And, I have never heard of a judge making the agency pay the attorney's fees of the plaintiff.

In this scenario, the plaintiff loses even if they win. How is that even remotely fair?

__________________
Operators gonna operate - Fact!

Counting on someone else's self restraint for your safety is not a strategy. - OLY-M4gery

__________________Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks

2. WHETHER CHARGES ARE EVER FILED OR NOT, the seized assets AUTOMATICALLY become the property of the agency.

3. It is then up to the owner of the asset to choose to file a civil suit to recover the assets.

4. It the asset owner chooses to sue, they have the burden of hiring an attorney (and paying for it themselves) and paying the filing fees to get the case into civil court. Then they have the burden of proof, and must "prove a negative" (that the asset ISN'T from illegal activity)

5. If they lose, they are subject to paying the attorney's fees for the agency's attorneys.

6. If they win, they get their stuff back. They don't get back their time, lost time from work, or any court expenses. And, I have never heard of a judge making the agency pay the attorney's fees of the plaintiff.

In this scenario, the plaintiff loses even if they win. How is that even remotely fair?

I'm sorry, you're wrong. Pretty much everything above is incorrect.

The government files claim and bears the burden of proof. You can see that simply by looking at the case cite: It's *always* "People v A Bunch of Stuff". And there is no "loser pays" in any civil proceeding (except when the government loses a 1983 suit and has to pay the citizen's costs).

Really, you're completely backwards here.

__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle